|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 - 10:09 pm: | 
|
I've heard it said that the fact Kelly's face was mutilated is possibly due to the killer knowing her as it is known that killers can disfigure faces for precisely this reason.
I was wondering if anyone knows of a killer serial or otherwise who has done this before.
Cheers, Wintergreen. |
Kyle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Hey ex PFC Wintergreen,
I know one who has. Hannibal Lectre loved to go about the face.In Hannibal, Silence of Lambs part 2, he did a great job on that pedifile. He druged him up and made him tear his own face off and feed it to the dog. He looked worse than Kelly. He also cut that guys skull cap off and fed him part of his own brain.
This is very pertinant.In 'Red Dragon', part3,the killer liked to cut the eyes out of his victims, and put pieces of shattered glass in the orbital sockets. This was very interesting, and led the FBI agents to deduce that this man needed an audiance to watch him, so he used the glass to see his reflection.They deduced that he was facialy disfigered and a signature killer.They got him in the end.
I have herd that some characters used in the film sequence were based on real life characters.If some one who uses this site is in the FBI they may be able to help, as I am not entirely sure.I dont know off hand of any real ones, but these movies were well made and give a real insight.
It has helped with my profile of the ripper:
* I think he had some sort of facial or physical disfigument that gave him an inferiority complex.( as with Red Dragon character)
* He had physcological confusion with his true sexualtiy.( as with Red Dragon character)
* He was connected to religion in some way
(maybe Jewish)
* He knew the area like the back of his hand.
But Wintergreen, he did not realy had to have known her, as most serial murderers are random.I dont buy the Joseph Barnett theory, that he was JtR. I personally believe the killer did not know Kelly.He did what he did to Kelly as that was the nature of this beast. I hoped I have helped you a bit.
|
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 12:24 pm: |
|
In response to old Hannibal, one of the serial killers he was based on was an old seemingly nice man called Albert Fish.
However he only ate children, but he did seem to be sort of intelligent.
Which is kind of interesting as I used to know a guy called Albert Child, who'd only eat fish.
Oh and they found giant pins in Fish's anus. He liked to put them there. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, April 22, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Hi Kyle.
Bravo. I'm glad to see that somebody has said something sensible and simple about the Kelly killing. I totally believe that the Ripper was a stranger to all his victims. I agree absolutely with your statement, that Kelly was butchered, face included, simply because it was "the nature of the beast". (I like that phrase).
I also can't accept the fantasy of Joe Barnett being JtR. The poor guy had no record of any violence either before or after the Kelly murder, and a little "domestic", which may have been patched up had she not been killed, is no motive for such horrendous butchery.
In all honesty, I can't go along with your profile of the Ripper, because I see a much different one myself. Maybe we can discuss this & compare notes sometime. But I'm glad to see that a bit of sense has been spoken on the other issues I've mentioned.
Best wishes Kyle.
DAVID C. |
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 477
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Hi Wintergreen.
Fish wasn't intelligent at all. In fact sometimes he was a raving incoherant idiot. He practiced every sexual perversity except bestiality.
Fish used to insert pins into his genitals for pleasure. Dozens were found in him in prison, including a fisherman's hook which had almost totally rusted away.
When Fish was executed, the Electric Chair short-circuited. It was believed the remaining pins in his body had caused it. Fish was desperately looking forward to his execution.
He was convicted for the murder of 13-year-old Grace Budd, but his account of the cooking of a little boy called Billy Gaffney is largely accepted to be one of the most chilling reports from a killer ever written.
No Diddles for this one, please!!!
Cheers
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3407
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 24, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
Wintergreen,
There exists a large number of cases where the killer has butchered the face; not only serial killers but also domestic murderers.
It is called depersonalisation, but the reasons for it could be different. Usually it is apparent in cases where the killer knew his victim (although it doesn't have to be, but such cases are recorded, like the one of Buck Ruxton) -- sometimes the reasons are emotional/psychological but very often it is done in order to make it harder to identify the victim.
Today that last point is pretty redundant, since one can easily get teeth imprints and maybe even DNA.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on April 24, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 479
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 4:11 am: |
|
Hi Glenn.
Did Ruxton actually mutilate the face? I have a very unpleasant 1930s book dealing solely with the medical aspects of the Ruxton case and it is full of dozens of mortuary shots of various parts of the murdered women. It is truly vile.
Obviously, the 2 victims were entirely dismembered but I wasn't aware they had been facially mutilated as well. They had largely decomposed by the time they were discovered. Though if you know for sure they WERE mutilated then that's good enough for me (I think he took out some teeth to prevent ID didn't he?).
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
David I was far from suggesting that the murders were a Gull-like choosing of victims, but if we assume that Jack probably came from Whitechapel, then it's possible he knew victims if only as acquaintances.
I fully believe that Jack the Ripper picked his victims at random, just because they were there and he was ready for some ripping, but if we take a suspect like Hutchinson, for example, then is it completely insane to say that given a whim he would have chosen someone despite knowing them?
Regards, Springred |
ex PFC Wintergreen
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, April 25, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
David I was far from suggesting that the murders were a Gull-like choosing of victims, but if we assume that Jack probably came from Whitechapel, then it's possible he knew victims if only as acquaintances.
I fully believe that Jack the Ripper picked his victims at random, just because they were there and he was ready for some ripping, but if we take a suspect like Hutchinson, for example, then is it completely insane to say that given a whim he would have chosen someone despite knowing them?
Regards, Springred |
Candy Morgan
Sergeant
Username: Candy
Post Number: 11
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi All!
Phillip - Grace Budd was 9 - not 13. of course, that doesn't make it any better... Have you ever seen the Xray photo of his pelvis? Ish!
Glen, please shoot me a line and cue me in on who you're thinking of - my peabrain isn't working today, because, I can't think of a CONFIRMED serial killer who mutilated the faces so extensivly as JtR. Maybe the Elizabeth Short case comes close, but that wasn't linked with any other similar murders (unless you count Georgette Bauerdorf a la Severed).
There's something really abhorrent about the whole facial mutilation angle, though, above and beyone the fact that they were killed, they were also almost 'erased' is maybe the word I want to use - like he was destroying their identity.
Ok, I've swept through my serial killer books here and I can't really find another one that did such an extensive job on the faces - when you discount things like the slice on Abigail Folger's cheek (part of a longer slash, not specifically to mutilate) and wounds to the face/forehead area that were done with the purpose of killing or disabling.
Thinking about it now, I remember a serial killing team back in the 80's (?), Odom and Bittaker (?), where the dominant one said "I didn't want to rape the girl, I just wanted to destroy her."
Maybe that's a dividing line - killing is one thing but completely destroying is another?
"What did you do to the cat? It looks half dead." ~ Mrs. Schrodinger
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 484
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 3:03 pm: |
|
Hi Candy.
I stand corrected on Grace Budd; I was doing that from memory. I've looked on the net and her age is given as all sorts from 9 to 13, though most put her as 10 or 12. The usual superb research done by most home criminologists...
The accomplice of Lawrence Bittaker was Roy Norris. Norris is seemingly contrite these days, but Bittaker (on Death Row, I understand) appears unrepentant to the best of my knowledge.
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 2408
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 28, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
BUT the FACT is that chummy did a sensational job in making MJK unrecognisable!
HAIR AND EARS/EYES....OH YEAH! seen through the window too!
God with that slaughter and the light available Im surprised he could see to the wall! (obviously missing the FM !)
Suzix |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1676
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 - 5:16 am: |
|
I find it interesting that in war situations, men called upon to fight can end up doing the same sort of horrific things to men (and women) from the opposing side that some serial killers indulge in.
I read recently of cases where war victims had been mutilated, decapitated and had their hearts torn out. I suspect their killers had to depersonalise them too, damaging or removing the physical and symbolic human features. And we are talking about complete strangers here, and the enemy, officially considered fair game - the very opposite of killing one's nearest and dearest.
So there's no easy way to tell whether the depersonalisation of MJK could indicate someone close to her as the killer, rather than a total stranger.
But considering the near decapitation of Chapman and the facial mutilations of Eddowes, I would plump for stranger over loved one for all, including MJK.
What's also interesting about Albert Fish is his claim to have believed he'd just killed a boy, when Grace Budd's body was still lying hacked up in the same room with him, after he'd spent the day abducting and interacting with her.
He may have made it up, but forgetting the sex of a victim so soon after the event seems an odd thing to lie about, and would at least make some sense as one more symptom of the depersonalisation process that protects such killers psychologically from facing what they've just done to a once living boy or girl, man or woman.
This process in serial killers would have little to do with any conscious feeling of remorse regarding the human victims, IMHO, and much to do with the psychological self-preservation that works to keep the self-destruct button just out of reach.
Love,
Caz
X |
Kyle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:10 pm: |
|
Hi David Cartwright - Yes, I have found Barnett's popularity as a suspect a little odd.Without saying that he should not be a suspect for JtR, he is of little interest to me.He is too normal a man for me.With the mutilation of Kelly, and the others, my profile is not of a normal man.As C.A. Morris said, in war normal men do this, but there was no war on, so my suspect had some pretty major problems.Barnett shows no signs at all of being a monster. He was concerned for Kelly right up to her death, and people who are genuinely concerned for others dont hack their faces off.(as a general rule).There is nothing in his profile of interest to me anyway.
I must say this about my profile. I have read that the worlds top crime agency profilers even admit that their proffesion is nothing more than the oppinion of the person doing the profile.It is largly guesswork and more of an artform than a science.So my profile is only my oppinion. Maybe only one or two things I have stated are correct.
Caroline Anne Morris - You make an interesting and relevant point about war.I just finished reading a very good war book about war on the Russian front in WW2.There was unspeakable butchery between the Nazis and the Russian partisans.Even the Whitechapel murders would not have raised an eyebrow on this battlefield.When the partisans struck behind German lines, the retribution was horrendous.Civilians were shot, tortured, set on fire, hung or worse, than dumped in mass graves in the ground or in the open.What happened to the retreating Germans of 1943/44 was even worse if caught by the partisans.They were mutilated with knifes, picks axes ect and left as a warning to all retreating soldiers the fate which awaited them.
The point here is that two 'Ideologies' were at war and it was iether total victory or total defeat for one or the other. Millions of men were compelled to kill and butcher for rival ideologies. I have always believed that this murderer, JtR, had an ideology. He may have had serious personal problems, but to his mind he was at war with these prostitutes whose 'Ideology' of selling thier bodies for sex conflicted with his own.The exact 'trigger' for him to start, and choice of victim, I am no wiser on.
Thanks |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
Hi Kyle,
Interesting thoughts there - thanks for posting them.
I think JtR may well have felt 'at war' with himself, almost as much as with these prostitutes. It was an age in which an insecure man could easily convince himself that every woman, from the poshest "lay-dee" down to the roughest whore, saw sex as the way to feather her nest at man's expense, exploiting his weakest spot of all - his sexual urge - to get exactly what she wanted in life.
If JtR had only ever felt disappointed, used and unloved by the woman or women in his life, one can only imagine the self-loathing and bitterness that was concentrated in the act of ripping up the unfortunates who offered him their wares (the 'enemy') and destroying the features they had used time and time again to lure weak men away from their money, their self control and their better judgement.
Love,
Caz
X |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1863
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 10:08 am: |
|
Caz,
This might ring true if the women he had chosen had been young and sexually alluring.
These women were first of all very heavy drinkers[to put it mildly because all of them,bar "possibly" Mary, had been in trouble with the law over their drinking on several occasions
and Mary herself had a reputation for loud brawling when drunk[but being very quiet and nice
when not].
Again apart from Mary [just possibly] hardly of an age or in the sort of glamourous
physical state to have caused anybody to have
lost their heads over them!
In other words it would surprise me greatly if the ripper, on copping sight of, say, Annie Chapman ,had said to himself, "Cor---there"s a looker for you, out to lure us males into her spider"s web with her sultry ,sensuous face and hour glass figure!I"ll be havin" her....last time she"ll outstare me with those luscious lips and come to bed eyes!"
No,I reckon he was way,way madder than that Caz---a complete nutcase in fact!I doubt he even took stock of what any of them looked like,
he was so anxious to get about his ripping!
Natalie |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 380
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:34 am: |
|
I agree,Nats, and also with the PFC.
He chose his victims randomly, as he was able to given circumstances.
As for MJK, he took apart the rest of her, why not the face?
Mags
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3422
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 11:57 am: |
|
Philip,
Sorry about the late response.
Well, as far as I can recall, on at least one of Ruxton's victims (I think his wife) the head and face seemed to be carved all the way down to the skull and bone! It looks terrible and I have seen the photos (you-know-who showed me a book...).
Candy,
Actually, I think I mislead you by expressing myself sloppily. To my knowledge, so called depersonalisation by mutilation of the face is much more common in domestic murders then actual serial killer cases -- in serial killer cases you can on occasion find victims with their faces nicked and mutilation in a similar mode to Eddowes, but to the excessive state of Kelly, you usually have to turn to domestic cases where the perpetrator has been a person very close to the victim, which in itself is something to keep in mind while studying the Kelly murder.
As for the "war" argument put forward here... sure, good and interesting point. However, fact remains that the Ripper murders did occur in the context of crime, not war.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 01, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
George Hutchinson
Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 489
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 12:07 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn.
I have a copy of that very book. The reason there is virtually nothing left of the faces is because they had totally rotted away - I am willing to be corrected, but I think what you saw is natural decomposition of the tissues and not mutilation by a human agency.
I'm not going to post jpegs on the boards for discussion!
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3423
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 12:14 pm: |
|
Hi Hutch,
Well, I could be wrong of course (I only took a fast glance and I don't own the book myself), but according to some written accounts of the murder that I have come across, I have read that the face was quite extremely mutilated by the murderer in order to hide the crime and the identity of the victim. And of course that still doesn't rule out decomposion in addition.
But if that book says otherwise, I certainly stand corrected.
I only picked the Ruxton murder as an example of one of such domestic cases.
Indeed, I would not recommend to post those pics.
By the way, what is that book called? I never managed to catch the title, and it seemed to contain a lot of interesting case stories. I would love to try and get it for reference.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 01, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1693
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 5:02 am: |
|
Hi Nats,
Your thinking here goes way beyond what I was actually suggesting. All Jack needed to know was that these women - as I wrote - were in the business of parting men from their money, their self control and their better judgement.
Drunk, ragged, past their prime and sexually unattractive, these dregs still had the ultimate power over men's pockets when the urge came over them - as it must have done day in, day out on the streets of Whitechapel, considering the number of prostitutes. To a hacked-off Jack, they represented the worst offenders and the most expendable.
That Jack chose his victims randomly, I do believe. But he would not have been unaware of exactly the type of woman he was likely to encounter walking those streets late at night, at the end of a working week when she could expect a man to have cash on him and to be tempted by the sexual services on offer.
Hi All,
If Barnett killed MJK, he certainly didn't mutilate her face or body in order to prevent identification. Some domestic killers go to great lengths to hide every last trace of what they've done, in the hope that their victim's name will never get taken off a missing persons list. These are the killers, I would imagine, who are less likely to suffer the terrible remorse that often leads to other domestic killers turning themselves in quite quickly after the event, or carelessly leaving clues.
I think if Barnett had left MJK there on the bed in the room they had shared, he would need to have been the craftiest or luckiest man on earth not to have left any clues leading straight to him. How many domestic killers get away with it when the evidence of their crime is left for all the world to see?
If Barnett had killed MJK and had a psychological need to depersonalise her, he soon got his act together afterwards, to hang in there and make such a good impression under questioning. And was it a happy coincidence for him that Jack had been doing something very similar, so shortly before he himself snapped for the first and last time? Or had his feelings towards MJK already turned nasty, and Jack's earlier work gave him the perfect opportunity to get rid of her and get on with his life?
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3426
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 6:20 am: |
|
Caz,
"And was it a happy coincidence for him that Jack had been doing something very similar, so shortly before he himself snapped for the first and last time? Or had his feelings towards MJK already turned nasty, and Jack's earlier work gave him the perfect opportunity to get rid of her and get on with his life?"
We can't know this of course and it's only theories, but if Barnett did it, I'd say the latter option would be the most logical one. As has already been pointed out by some theorists there was a constant fear among doctors and authorities that the Ripper's work might influence "weak minds" in an unfortunate way. The large number of prostitutes with their throats cut after MJK also confirms this.
No way do I think it would have been a coincidence.
"I think if Barnett had left MJK there on the bed in the room they had shared, he would need to have been the craftiest or luckiest man on earth not to have left any clues leading straight to him. How many domestic killers get away with it when the evidence of their crime is left for all the world to see?"
Caz, this was 1888.
Forensic evidence didn't even exist. You had to catch him in the act or get a confession. All he had to do was to convince the police, who were on a large deal of pressure to catch Jack the Ripper and had their eyes set on other directions.
We don't know anything about Barnett's real mental disposition or his own personal feelings besides what he himself had told the police.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1869
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 6:39 am: |
|
Hi Caz,
I see your point OK.
I myself can"t envisage a Jack who more or less shared these" average bloke" attitudes to women in LVP.
IMHO we have a complete nutter here, out and about at all hours but mostly nocturnal and with the predators nocturnal vision.He is mostly on the look out for "unfortunates" who have had one over the eight.
When he catches his prey he kills mutilates and then leaves us with an "offering"-a bit like a cat would.He may even have "eaten" the bits and pieces he trophied.
To me this is no ordinary type working man
with an ordinary sexual appetite but with a major grudge.He is either a religious maniac thinking he is obeying orders from above or he has a major sexual fetish whose urge he can"t or doesn"t want to control.
Natalie
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1701
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
Hi Glenn,
We don't know anything about Barnett's real mental disposition or his own personal feelings besides what he himself had told the police.
And there is also no evidence that he ever committed a violent act, unlike Jack, who had already committed similar atrocities. There is no presumption of innocence concerning Jack's violence, whoever he was. But I see no reason to presume Barnett was anything other than innocent on current information.
Hi Nats,
I didn't mean to imply that I thought Jack had an 'ordinary' sexual appetite; I wouldn't like to guess. But I do think it's logical to consider that some major issue with the female sex made him turn to violence against it. And I don't think the people around him would have seen the 'complete nutter' you describe. Serial killers in general, when identified, get the reaction "Well, I suppose I can see it now, he was a bit odd, did some really odd things now I come to think of it, but I never expected anything like this!"
I think Jack might have been in this category.
Love,
Caz
X |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Caz,
I couldnt agree more that Jack probably did look pretty much as most of the caught serial killers look-
but I think that he ,like most of them,was completely off his head.Scratch the surface of this "normal "exterior -of any of them -and there is nothing normal there -its a front,thats all.
They are all nutters.
Natalie
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1704
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 4:29 am: |
|
Hi Nats,
Yes, I see what you mean. But they can sometimes kill for years (Sutcliffe and Shipman for example) and even their wives are none the wiser.
Love,
Caz
X |
Kyle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
Caroline Anne Morris. Yes, the context is crime and not war.I think that is why these series of murders are so unusual and maintain a cult following. Because they occured outside the confines of a battlefield.However I believe this person was not normal and may have thought it was war.As you put it, he may have been at war with himself.In this 'personal' war, he may have actually thought he was at war. The propstitutes he chose were just casualties of this war of his.
His fallacies about the nature of woman, as you say, I think led him to do what he did.Kelly's facial mutilation, and the removal of her heart indicate spite to me.As I stated in my last post, a real deep seeded ideology.I personally believe, the trigger was not a single incident, but a long festering problem with females in his life, or socially, that built up over decades. A critical mass was reached.
With your post, it points to a James Maybrick type suspect, with his loathing of whores.Although with him, it soley hinges on the diary.I do think that it could still be a suspect not yet put forward.
Natalie Savern.I disagree a little on your appraisal.I think Tabram ,Nichols and Chapman were not too sexually aluring.But Stride , Eddows and Kelly look pretty attractive to me.A strange equation exists in the murders.There seems to be a direct correlation between the severity of mutilation and the atrractiveness of the victim.I will try to illustrate.
1. Tabram - probably the least attractive - not much interest shown by ripper, just stab wounds.
2.Nichols and Chapman - both equal in looks and both got it about the same.
3.Stride - her mutilations disturbed by witnessess.
4. Eddow's - a division up from the others - he savagely attacks the face now, along with the rest of her.
5. Kelly - the best yet, young and attractive - she is cut to pieces.
I think this a good indicator to what Caroline said.The better looking means more power to influence men, so greater the punishment dished out by this angry individual.
Thanks |
Nicholas Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 3:31 pm: |
|
Greetings,
Moving off the topic a tad but also relevent, most serial killers believe they have a defined purpose in life. Unfortunately it would appear that women, particularly prostitutes, are their targets. As we all know, Jack fell into this catagory.
But if a comparison could be made, times haven't changed. Our modern day serial killer still blends in with the crowd, and contradictory to Resslers 'profiling' most have stable employment, are married with kids and have social lives. Because of their 'normality' they blend in comfortably with their community.
I'll only cite Peter Sutcliff and Fred West at the moment but I'm sure you know of others who fit into the 'profile'.
One thing to remember is iterated in Caz's earlier comments about the attrocities committed during war. Even though these extremists who go around blowing up innocent people and video themselves beheading someone, they all wear masks to protect their identity - as if they know they're committing crimes against humanity. Jack didn't.
Nick |
Nicholas Smith
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 02, 2005 - 5:38 am: |
|
Greetings one and all,
There's a new book out call 'Will the Real Mary Kelly.....' I haven't read it yet but it might shed some light on this issue.
Nicholas Smith |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1872
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 03, 2005 - 6:28 pm: |
|
Kyle,
Well actually....Martha yes photo not so good
but we don"t really know what she looked like.Strangulation can cause the swollen looking face etc. and someone who visited this site had seen a photo of her when she was some years younger and stated that she was once a really beautiful girl.
Polly Nichols I would disagree with you about.She apparently looked surprisingly young not more than early 30"s although in her 40"s[according to the examining doctors].Her description states that she had rather delicate features-again often associated with prettiness etc.
Annie Chapman-well Annie doesnt seem to have been particularly attractive even in her youthful marriage photo.
Elizabeth Stride.She looks quite attractive in her own way I agree.
Catherine Eddowes;You can more or less tell that she had rather elfin features and thick flowy hair.But looking closely at the mortuary photos she does seem to have also been thin,waif like and somewhat pinched-with sunken eyes etc.Not surprising given her hand to mouth existence.
Mary Kelly yes,-young and said to have been attractive with long waist length hair and fair skin.So she does fit your theory in that she was the most mutilated.
But as far as the others go I just can"t see them having much that was "alluring" about them at the time of their deaths and anyway wasn"t it too dark to see them properly except for Annie ?
Nicholas,
I think like you that the crimes are different.
BTW-the book ,"Will the Real Mary Kelly" was written by Chris Scott who is part of the editorial staff on this site.
Natalie
|
curleysangel
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 1:53 pm: |
|
Hello group,
Just wanted to throw in my two cents worth. The Victorians had quite a different view of beauty and what makes a woman appealing than we do today. Beauty, as viewed by modern eyes, usually is a thin, tanned woman. You see it in models all the time; the bronze skin and boney, stick like structure. However, that physique is useless to the nineteenth century man. A woman's main purpose in life is to bear children. If she is thin, she most likely will succcomb to childbirth. Also, tanned skin shows that the woman isn't wealthy enough to hire someone else to do her outside work.
In the end, looking back at the murders with our twenty-first century eyes, we might not see beauty in a stocky, round woman. But to the ninetheenth century man, it was a stocky robust woman that he wanted. Robust = healthy, in a way.
So, in a way, I find it hard to believe that Mary Kelly was mutilated the most because she was the best looking; it could have just been extreme rage against this one woman. Maybe she was mouthy or something; unfortunately, we'll never know. ~*~*~ |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1873
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 5:27 pm: |
|
curleysangel,
Good points!I know that many of the Victorian statues of women as well as many of the paintings show very hefty women with huge thighs.So the ideal was indeed very different.
The description of Mary Kelly given to the police by her friends also seems to point to a hefty looking young woman with big round cheeks! But you cant tell this from the crime scene photo of her, since such a lot of her flesh was removed
by the ripper or by whoever murdered her.
Natalie |
Maria Giordano
Inspector
Username: Mariag
Post Number: 388
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 04, 2005 - 7:46 pm: |
|
Kyle-
Your progression in the severity of mutilation also follows the timeline ie; more mutilating as he went along in time and became more experienced.
We can't ignore this simple thought.
Mags
|
Kyle
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 06, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Hi Maria,
I agree with you on this pattern of him progressing on a learning curve.There are other patterns too.One might say the severity of the attacks relected his need for media exposure. He stabbed Tabram 39 times, but the story was scantly covered.Once he started to disembowell them, with Polly and Annie, they grabbed front page headlines. You could say his double event, and slaying of Kelly were attempts to keep his work sensationalised, and on the front pages. It worked.
So anyway, there are these 3 patterns.
a. Attractiveness
b. experience, or learning curve
c. need for media coverage
I strongly believe that all of these patterns may have some application for these murders.
Thanks
|
Candy Morgan
Sergeant
Username: Candy
Post Number: 14
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 1:20 pm: |
|
Oh, gosh, Glenn and Phillip, hello you guys!
I try to post back as soon as possible but I think my meeting with the ground at 30 MPH has somewhat effected my internet savvy, so I'm sorry I didn't post sooner.
Phillip - Hi! I stand corrected as well, if I'd just pull out the books that are gathering dust I would know names and not need to play "I'm thinking of a serial killer - guess which one". 
And since we're both standing correctly now, can we sit down and have a pint?
(BTW, my knowing Grace Budd's birthday comes from the fact that we share the day, though several years apart. I'll take useless trivia for $500, Alex...)
Glenn, Hi! Your english is a great deal less sloppy than my Norsk would be - if I knew any (and I'm not even sure it's Norsk, it may be Swedish or Dane, correct?)
But, yes, that was what I was going for - that facial mutilation is usually (NOT EXCLUSIVELY) the area of domestic violence.
Ah, ok, now I'm going to finish this thread...
"What did you do to the cat? It looks half dead." ~ Mrs. Schrodinger
|
George Hutchinson
Chief Inspector
Username: Philip
Post Number: 518
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 09, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Hi Candy.
Glenn was right. We shared a webcam conversation recently and I brought out the very book MEDIO-LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE RUXTON CASE which he had once seen. Horrible, horrible contents. But on looking through it he was right - the noses, ears and lips of both victims were taken off.
However, we have to consider that this was an act to prevent identification and unless we're going down the silly alley of 'It wasn't MJK on the bed' then that won't apply here.
No one seems to know how old Grace Budd actually was, but it will tell you her brother's age spot-on every time!
Glenn's Swedish. And he knows it.
 
 
PHILIP
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
|
Sandy
Sergeant
Username: Sandy
Post Number: 20
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 31, 2005 - 3:29 pm: |
|
Hello everyone.
The first thing I would like to bring up is James Russell Odom. I have a book entitled "The Cases that Haunt Us" by John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, which has a section about Jack the Ripper. In this, James Odom and James Clayton Lawson Jr. are quoted in regards to their crimes. Odom states "Then I cut her throat so she would not scream...I wanted to cut her body so she would not look like a person and destroy her so she would not exist." Lawson stated, "I did not rape the girl. I only wanted to destroy her." After this, the author states, "This, I think, is what investigators were seeing at 13 Miller's Court." There are many statements about Mary Kelly being an attractive woman. Could she have perceived as somehow more of a threat, or having more power because of this? Maybe. Could it be that JtR knew her personally? Maybe. The fact is, we don't know for sure. And, if the person who killed Mary was not JtR, this does not mean that Barnett was her killer. I tend to feel that whoever killed Mary wanted to depersonalize her, and I feel this way because of the extent of mutilations that were inflicted on her face. What happened to Mary was definitely overkill. And, yes, this could be explained by the fact that this crime happened indoors, therefore the killer had more time to wreak his personal havoc. The person responsible for her murder wanted to do much more than kill her, or butcher her. He wanted to destroy her. Perhaps the killer felt that her attractiveness gave her some type of power. If the killer felt some threat because of her beauty, perhaps there was something about him that made it impossible for him to be comfortable around attractive women. A physical deformity? A perceived deformity? I know I am speculating now, so perhaps I should end this post here. Thoughts?
Sandy |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
